The great solution.

**Ernest.k.Appiah** · 13-08-2012, 06:46 AM

Hey guy, do you think that one day there is going to be an end to aging?
i hope so..

**jcak** · 13-08-2012, 10:57 AM

Not sure this is in the correct forum but that's not for me to decide I guess!

Long story short: yes. Have you heard of the mitochondrial theory of aging? It's effectively about the location of electrons on mitochondrial electron transport chains. When electrons are passed along the chain, they finally end up attaching to oxygen to form O2- (That's a sub script 2 and a superscript -). This O2- is called superoxide and the enzyme superoxide dismutase converts it to H2O2, which the enzyme catalase can convert to water. However, roughly 1 in 1000 of these superoxides aren't safely turned to water. These do damage to things such as DNA, the proteins in the electron transport chain and superoxide dismutase enzymes (hence making them less efficient and more superoxides getting through). This is one of the many factors which contribute to someone being "old".

There are several ways to counter this medically from the most basic of things like consuming more antioxidants in foods like vegetables through to more complex solutions. One of my lecturers is doing some research into this, as not only does it hold true for aging, but it also plays a role in neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's Disease. If successful, then yes, there will one day be an end to aging, or at least a speed bump in the endless procession to old age.

**Profanius** · 13-08-2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by jcak

When electrons are passed along the chain, they finally end up attaching to oxygen to form O2- (That's a sub script 2 and a superscript -). This O2- is called superoxide and the enzyme superoxide dismutase converts it to H2O2, which the enzyme catalase can convert to water.

Strictly speaking, at the end of the ETC (electronic transport chain), O2 acts as the reducing agent but combines with free protons from the mitochodrial matrix at cytochrome c oxidase to form water, which contributes to the electrochemical proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. Oxidative stress occurs because the ETC is not 100% efficient and electrons prematurely escape this process to form free radicals like superoxide. Superoxide is produced by accident, rather than design - but the effects are still the same.

While free radicals certainly promote the aging process they aren't the full story. Even if you removed all free radicals, cells would still innevitably age due to the process of telomere shortening, which effectively limits the number of times a eukaryotic cell can replicate. There are also cell types that do not regenerate (brain cells, nerve cells etc.) that would just wear out over time. You'd have to find a way of creating new genetic material - stem cell research is the way forward. Which still begs the question... would you want to live forever?

**Zedd** · 13-08-2012, 04:32 PM

The problem isn't so much whether it is possible; it's whether it's ethical.

**jcak** · 14-08-2012, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Profanius

Strictly speaking, at the end of the ETC (electronic transport chain), O2 acts as the reducing agent but combines with free protons from the mitochodrial matrix at cytochrome c oxidase to form water, which contributes to the electrochemical proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. Oxidative stress occurs because the ETC is not 100% efficient and electrons prematurely escape this process to form free radicals like superoxide. Superoxide is produced by accident, rather than design - but the effects are still the same.

I was intending to dumb down my answers because I wanted to get to work on time this morning- sorry for any confusion!

If I remember correctly, the shortening of telomeres has been partly solved (In mus musculus at least) and effects have somehow been significantly reduced in at least one study. If I find my USB with the report I had I'll post an abstract for you. I hadn't even considered the ethical implications. These both link in together also, the self amplifying cycle between mtDNA mutations from ROS and telomere uncapping are closely linked, hence completely stopping the ROS would prevent a large proportion of telomere shortening.

On a similar note, I heard a theory the other day in which someone claimed if the cure for cancer had been discovered, certain government officials would want it hushed up in order to prevent the mass overpopulation and eventual chaos rising from such a situation in which all cancer patients survived. I didn't give much credit to the thought personally- how does everyone else weigh in on this matter?

**Profanius** · 14-08-2012, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by jcak

I was intending to dumb down my answers because I wanted to get to work on time this morning- sorry for any confusion!

Nah... it's just me nitpicking. I'm far too pretentious to dumb anything down

As it is, I'm all for anti-oxidant approach. The best sources of dietary anti-oxidants are dark tea and red wine. It will be difficult, but I'm sure I can manage copious quantities.

As for the cure for cancer... there are hundreds of different types of cancer - finding a universal cure for all of them seems unlikely. Cancer is the plague of the developed world, where populations are relatively steady or declining slightly. Global cancer deaths are nothing compared to the global tally from hunger/malnutrition, TB, HIV, Malaria etc. From a government perspective finding a cure for cancer would free up billions in long term health costs. However, for pharmaceutical companies, treating cancer would be more profitable than curing it, so they might have an interest in witholding a cure. Cue the conspiracy theorists...

**jcak** · 14-08-2012, 07:08 PM

At 7am when I'm supposed to be at work nit picking takes a back seat.
You and I share some good anti oxidant plans! Uni's obviously a good way to prevent aging!

I love a good conspiracy theory argument...

**jcak** · 16-08-2012, 11:54 PM

I'm not so sure it's the minimal dangerous chemicals, but the excess of substances such as antioxidants which we've already briefly touched upon.

Where is the balance point between CHD benefits from wine and the negatives from it? Just to be safe I think I'll drink by the bottle...

**jcak** · 17-08-2012, 01:52 AM

There is no significant correlation between brain size and intelligence. There is between diseases such as Alzheimer's and Dementia, but not measurable intelligence. It may kill off certain cells if overused, but doesn't affect size, maybe weight but I doubt it, potentially density?

The reason most people choose to drink wine is they enjoy it. Not only the taste, but the idea of the sophistication, the fact it's often better than water if you're living in Victorian ages/middle of Africa, and in the typical student case, to get drunk. CHD is usually last on people's list! It may be a depressant, but it's by no means a strong one. The effects are very short lived unless it's utilised in mass excess at a constant rate.

My initial point was more of a query, on their own, what are the dangerous chemicals in our drinks? Alcohol aside, as we all know about that mostly. In fizzy drinks, what are the dangers you're pointing out? Drinking coke gives you cancer as well as rotten teeth?

On a side note, as you pointed out, "man-made" foods are a contributor. Everything from bread to a sliced tomato can be classed as "man-made", right? Without mans additions/removals it wouldn't exist in that form, I might be being pedantic, but can you see where I'm coming from?

**jcak** · 17-08-2012, 11:00 AM

Bread-error-interpretation, new favourite phrase! Sorry, my question stands, which complex chemicals in fizzy drinks are you specifically pointing out?